G.R. No. 169091; February 16, 2006
DATU EDUARDO AMPO, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Datu Eduardo Ampo was apprehended on January 20, 1992, at a police checkpoint for carrying a .45-caliber pistol without the required permit during the election period under COMELEC Resolution No. 2323 (Gun Ban). He claimed the firearm was covered by a memorandum receipt but admitted he lacked the specific COMELEC authorization. He was subsequently convicted by the Regional Trial Court, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) on May 16, 2002.
The CA decision became final and executory on November 21, 2002. Petitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65 only on June 17, 2005, after receiving a notice of promulgation from the trial court in April 2005. He argued he was deprived of due process as he only learned of the adverse CA decision and the death of his counsel upon receipt of said notice, thus preventing him from filing a motion for reconsideration. He also challenged the factual findings and evidence supporting his conviction.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for certiorari should be granted on the grounds of denial of due process due to lack of notice of the CA decision and alleged erroneous factual findings.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. On procedural grounds, the Court held that a petition for relief from judgment, which is the proper remedy when a party is unjustly deprived of a hearing or appeal due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable neglect, must be filed within 60 days from knowledge of the judgment and not more than six months from its entry. The CA judgment became final in November 2002, but the petition was filed in June 2005, far beyond the non-extendible six-month period. The Court emphasized the principle that equity aids the vigilant, noting petitioner’s lack of diligence in monitoring his case and his counsel’s status.
On the substantive challenge, the Court ruled that factual findings of the CA, especially when affirming the trial court, are generally conclusive and not reviewable. Petitioner provided no compelling reason to overturn these findings. The Court also noted that the offense of violating the COMELEC gun ban is malum prohibitum, where criminal intent is immaterial; mere commission of the act is sufficient for conviction. Petitioner’s admitted lack of the required COMELEC permit was thus decisive. The petition was denied for being procedurally infirm and substantively without merit.